Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 468 to 472 of 19135, decided on 5th June, 1985.
(Against the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑4‑1985, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521 and 1522 of 1985).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Grant of leave to appeal‑‑Discretionary relief‑ Petitioners not desiring to contest petition before Election Authority consenting to hold fresh poll‑‑Their subsequent review petition failing on technical grounds‑‑Having participated in polls and lost, petitioners challenged decision in Constitutional petition‑‑Petitioner, held: Not entitled to equitable relief under Art. 199 as also not entitled to grant of discretionary relief of leave to appeal.
‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Interpretation of‑‑Jurisdiction of Election Authority‑‑Authority has no power to pass order for fresh poll.
Emmanual Masih v. The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and others 1985 S C M R 729 rel.
Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions).
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985.
‑This order shall dispose of:
(i) C. P. S. L. A. No. 468/1985 filed by Hayat Muhammad;
(ii) C.P.S.L.A. No. 469/1985 filed by Rehmatullah;
(iii) C. P. S. L. A. No. 470/1985 filed by Muhammad Ramzan;
(iv) C. P. S. L. A. No. 471 of 1985 filed by Muhammad Ali; and
(v) C. P. S. L. A. No. 472 of 1985 filed by Muhammad Khan, as they involve the same question of law and are directed against the same judgment, dismissing petitioner's writ petition in an election matter.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioners were directed as members of the Town Committee, Rasulnagar as a result of the poll held on 28‑9‑1983. On 3‑10‑1983 the contesting respondents moved a petition before the Punjab Election Authority invoking its jurisdiction under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 on the plea that the poll at the ladies polling booths was not proper. During the hearing of the petition on 3‑2‑1983, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Authority that they did not want to contest the petition and would have no objection if a fresh poll at the female polling election was ordered. The Election Authority, therefore, directed a re‑poll. Subsequently on 14‑2‑1985 the present petitioners moved a review application before the Authority but this application was dismissed on 7‑4‑1985 on technical grounds. The re‑poll was held on 9‑3‑1985 as scheduled. The petitioners participated in the poll but were defeated.
The petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court which were dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the interpretation of section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 as given in the case of Emmanual Masih v. The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and others 1985 S C M R 729, the election authority has no power to pass an order for a. fresh poll.
4. Technically the petitioner's counsel is correct but in view of the facts of this case it was rightly held by the High Court that the petitioners were not entitled to the equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. For the same reasons the petitioners are also not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief of leave to appeal by this Court.
All the five petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
M.I. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer